TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 615X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which involves substantial questions of law, it is not open to this Court to sit in appeal over the factual findings arrived at by the Assessing Officer, Appellate Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal. Hence, both these appeals cannot be entertained. - Tax Case Appeal Nos. 413 and 414 of 2017 and C.M.P.No. 10330 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 2-8-2017 - The Hon'ble Chief Justice And Justice M. Sundar For the Appellant : Mr.G.Baskar For the Respondent : Mr.Karthick Ranganathan JUDGMENT ( Judgment of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice ) Both these appeals are against a judgment and order dated 7th April 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, rejecting the appeals being I.T.A.Nos.3011 and 3077/Mds/2016 filed by the appellant assessee against orders dated 29th September 2016 and 18th October 2016 of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai confirming levy of penalty under Sections 271E and 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'IT Act') on the appellant assessee, in respect of the assessment year 2012-2013. 2 The appellant Assessee was running a petrol pump and had filed return of in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred to in clause (a) together with the amount or the aggregate amount referred to in clause (b), is twenty thousand rupees or more : Thus it is clear that no person can accept any loan or deposit of ₹ 20,000/- or more otherwise than by way of an account payee cheque or an account payee draft. The limit of ₹ 20,000/- will also apply to a case even if on the date of taking or accepting such loan or deposit, any loan or deposit taken or accepted earlier by such person from such depositor is remaining unpaid and such unpaid amount along with the loan or deposit to be accepted, exceeds the aforesaid limit. Similarly, penalty under Section 271E of the Act is imposed for violation of the provisions of Section 269T of the Act. Section 269T of the Act provides that any branch of a banking company or a cooperative society, firm or other person shall not repay any loan or deposit. Otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft drawn in the name of the person, who has made the loan or deposit, if (1) The amount of the loan or deposit together with interest is ₹ 20,000/- or more, or (2) The aggregate amount of loans or deposits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hero Vinoth (supra) are set out herein below : 21. The phrase substantial question of law , as occurring in the amended Section 100 CPC is not defined in the Code. The word substantial, as qualifying question of law , means of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable. It is to be understood as something in contradistinction with technical, of no substance or consequence, or academic merely. However, it is clear that the legislature has chosen not to qualify the scope of substantial question of law by suffixing the words of general importance as has been done in many other provisions such as Section 109 of the Code or Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The substantial question of law on which a second appeal shall be heard need not necessarily be a substantial question of law of general importance. In Guran Ditta v. Ram Ditta [(1927-28) 55 IA 235 : AIR 1928 PC 172] the phrase substantial question of law as it was employed in the last clause of the then existing Section 100 CPC (since omitted by the Amendment Act, 1973) came up for consideration and their Lordships held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. To be a question of law involving in the case there must be first a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by court of facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. An entirely new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstance of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case or not, the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis. (See Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari [(2001) 3 SCC 179] .) 24.The principles relating to Section 100 CPC relevant for this case may be summarised thus : (i) An inference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
